OSCE/FSC: RESPONSE TO RUSSIAN PROPOSAL TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 111008 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/27/2014 TAGS: KCFE PARM PREL OSCE SUBJECT: OSCE/FSC: RESPONSE TO RUSSIAN PROPOSAL TO REVIEW VIENNA DOCUMENT 1999 REF: (A)USOSCE 235, (B)STATE 93327 Classified By: Richard A. Davis, VCI/CCA Director, for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (U) This is an action cable. ¶2. (SBU) Washington notes that immediately following the report of the Russian del's draft proposal (Ref A), the UK Chair of the FSC distributed a proposal for a MC Draft Decision on Issues Relevant to the Forum for Security Cooperation (MC.DD/8/09/Corr.1). Washington is still reviewing this proposal, and may have edits to offer as discussion is underway in the FSC, but Mission is requested to lay down a strong marker immediately with the Russian Del, the UK FSC Chair, and others, that we find the language in para 2, tick 2 to be an optimal way to address FSC work related to arms control and CSBMs (i.e., Vienna Document 1999): "- Explore ways in which to strengthen current arms control and CSBM instruments." ¶3. (C) Mission should make clear that Washington will not entertain the Russian proposal for a separate decision on a review of the Vienna Document 1999, whether in the FSC or for MC consideration. ¶4. (SBU) Washington agrees with Mission recommendation to work with Russia to change the direction of its effort to one in which individual CSBM proposals are advanced and considered on their own merits, with later examination as to whether they are more appropriate as stand-alone measures or should be incorporated into Vienna Document or another OSCE instrument. This should enable us to demonstrate to Russia and those delegations inclined to support Russia's proposal some activity without re-opening the Vienna Document 1999 in a way that may not be controllable, and leading to an outcome that may not be in our interest. Mission should continue to apply the general guidance on CSBMS contained in ref B and should not hesitate to note the well-established USG criteria for consideration of new CSBMs: military significance, reciprocity or balance, and appropriate verification. To this end, Mission may seek to identify with the Russian Del an informal list of issues/proposals that might be be considered in the FSC beginning in January 2010. This list would have no status other than as an internal tool to help us focus our internal preparations in the first part of 2010. ¶5. (SBU) Mission is encouraged to inform the UK FSC Chair, and incoming Chairmen Greece and Hungary, as well as Quad members France and Germany, of our approach to facilitate FSC work plans for the remainder of 2009 and into 2010. We do not want the incoming FSC Chairs to pursue a formal schedule for FSC discussion of individual issues, something that has been done in the past and had the effect of limiting the discussion, but prefer to keep our efforts focused on an open-ended and constructive review of (as per MC.DD/8/09/Corr.1 indicates) "ways in which to strengthen current arms control and CSBM instruments." CLINTON